Discussion the issue of the military campaign of Bohdan Khmelnitsky of 1649-1651 in modern historiography
Journal Title: Eminak - Year 2017, Vol 3, Issue 1
Abstract
Using the comparative method, in this article the state of scientific development is analyzed by modern Ukrainian scientists of discussion on military campaign of B. Khmelnytsky of 1649-1651. It is noted that the political decisions of the Ukrainian Hetman under Zboriv in 1649 and Berestechko in 1651 make his image of the controversial figure of the Ukrainian statebuilding. Y. Mytsyk indicates that the siege of Zbarazh has given the necessary preconditions for the victory in the battle under Zboriv. Assessing the battle under Zboriv, I. Storozhenko emphasizes that it has been corresponded to the concept of the oncoming battle and has become a model of operational-tactical solution to organize the conduction of fighting. I. Storozhenko is sure that B. Khmelnytsky has stopped Zboriv battle and has made the Crimean Khan to do this. There is the opposite thought of V. Smoliy and V. Stepankov, which prove that the order on termination of the battle has come from the Crimean Khan Islam-Girey. T. Mac′kìv believes that Zboriv agreement was not adequate to an actual success of Cossack troops. T. Yakovleva adheres to a similar thought, she writes that Zboriv agreement brightly testified that at that time the desire of ordinary Cossacks and Hetman with his foreman much differed. O. Subtelnyi believes that among the Ukrainian masses Zboriv peace could not cause nothing but indignation. The controversial question is the behavior of B. Khmelnitsky under Berestechko, including his stay in the Tatar captive camp. Certain historians, such as Polish, write about «the shameful escape Khmelnytsky from the field of battle», the others believe that B. Khmelnytsky has followed Khan to return him to the place of battle, voluntarily has stayed with the Tatars, and then he could not return to Berestechko. S. Storozhenko agrees with them too, who believes that in order to prevent the national condemnation he could imitate the capture. I. Sveshnìkov argues that the absence of B. Khmelnytsky on the field of battle caused the fact that he was captured by Islam-Girey III. V. Smoliy and V. Stepankov illustrate as proof the testimony of the participants of the battle from the Polish, Ukrainian and even the Crimean side about the detention of B. Khmelnitsky by Khan.
Authors and Affiliations
Yuriy Stepanchuk
Keywords
Related Articles
- EP ID EP254254
- DOI -
- Views 112
- Downloads 0
Galicia in the concept of Polish messianic vision
In this paper, the idea bases of an interpretation of the Polish messianic vision of Galicia’s «polishness» are proved. Under conditions of modern creation of a nation, the Polish formulated political conceptions about t...
The study of museum collections as a method of restoring scientific biography (Mykola Makarenko)
The article is devoted to the study of the main directions of activity of the outstanding scientist-encyclopedic, archaeologist, art historian, memorial guardian, one of the founders of the museum affairs in Ukraine M.O....
International humanitarian mission of the Red Cross in Ukraine (1991-2015)
The article examines the main directions of charitable financial assistance of the international community to the population of Ukraine, which was held in the framework of the international Red Cross humanitarian program...
The formation of the alcohol industry in the Ukrainian lands
Production of ethyl alcohol in the Russian Empire, which included Ukrainian lands, began in the XV century. The formation of the alcohol industry was more intense after the peasant reform of 1861, due to the state intere...
Interaction of Orthodox clergy and secular authorities in the process of princely power exaltation in Kievan Rus
The article oversees the peculiarities of relations between the Orthodox clergy and princely power in the process of exaltation and sacralization of one-man rule of Rurik dynasty, and using by Kievan princes the Pontic v...